If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

On Tuesday, November 30th the Michigan House and Senate will address the issue of the firearms confiscation bill previously mentioned on this site as HB 6139 and SB 212. Last time this attempted to be rammed through committee we asked people to show up and voice your disapproval for this bill.

Three individuals were all that showed but what followed was so revealing that the bill was tabled because of the nature of the corruption established with this bill. Many people have failed to understand the importance of this bill needing to be defeated but nonetheless, THIS IS NOT THE BILL SOME HAVE APATHETICALLY STATED "ALREADY EXISTS". Since that day there have been a few radio shows which have covered the perils of this bill.

I will not post a lengthily "why or why not" this is so but we need EVERYBODY WE CAN GET TO SHOW UP! After the three people gave such riveting, fact based and documented evidence the bill was momentarily dropped. Then after failing to notify citizens the bill was hidden and hurried through the Senate, where it unanimously passed a month later.

This will be our last opportunity to defeat this horror filled bill. Again, I will emphasize the point WE NEED YOU TO SHOW UP! If you have any questions I will do my best to answer those questions for you, so please do not hesitate to call me and by all means, please show up on Tuesday, November 30th.

I read the bill, then reread it a couple times, pretty short and too the point. It is my interpretation that if a LEO seizes an illegally possessed firearm, instead of destroying it, they can sell it to someone who can legally possess it. I am inclined to not have a problem with this bill unless I am missing something.

I read the bill, then reread it a couple times, pretty short and too the point. It is my interpretation that if a LEO seizes an illegally possessed firearm, instead of destroying it, they can sell it to someone who can legally possess it. I am inclined to not have a problem with this bill unless I am missing something.

My reading of it just says that rather that the state getting the profits from the sale the agency (local sheriff) confiscating the gun gets the profits. Maybe the house and senate versions are different, I didn't read both. I see where it might be an incentive for a local small town police to take a gun but otherwise it is just a redirection of who gets the money for the sale of the gun under present laws.

PT11 & Stainless you are correct on what you read . . . . but there is so much more. There is the potential to even affect Open Carry. Not only that they have total immunity. So if they seize your firearm, EVEN INCORRECTLY, it theirs, their friends or perhaps their dept. needs a new 50 cal. Maybe junior LEO of the future needs one for his first hunting trip?

Not only does it affect firearms but knives, etc. . There is a whole lot more there. Say you moved here and failed to register your firearms. That's a crime and you lose. We need people to show up and fight this.

PT11 & Stainless you are correct on what you read . . . . but there is so much more. There is the potential to even affect Open Carry. Not only that they have total immunity. So if they seize your firearm, EVEN INCORRECTLY, it theirs, their friends or perhaps their dept. needs a new 50 cal. Maybe junior LEO of the future needs one for his first hunting trip?

Not only does it affect firearms but knives, etc. . There is a whole lot more there. Say you moved here and failed to register your firearms. That's a crime and you lose. We need people to show up and fight this.

Wait, so every gun they seize they keep, I don't thinks so. The statute addresses only illegal guns that are seized, which under current law are not returned to the offender.

*The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

In addition to being able to do key word searches in Michigan laws and bills you can enter bill numbers.

Bronson

Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

This bill allows the police to further victimize the victims of a gun theft by only requiring the police to post a notice of intent to sell. Note it never says CONTACT or FIND the victim/owner so the police can post it on a web site or worse yet on their bulletin board in the lobby and then the victims will never know the firearm was found. This is in contrast to before where they would find you and have the local police knock on your door or call you to let you know said firearm was located. This new law is pure bullsh*t, and a deliberate attempt to not only take firearms from owners but to also cash in as well. There is no notification guidelines. Web site is NOT enough, 99% of people will not check each week for the next ten years to see if said gun was found. Then the weasels want immunity for mishandling my stolen firearm. Like I said this is deliberate bullsh*t. So basically you are incorrect it does allow every gun seized or found. A lost gun is not illegal and yet this allows a lost firearm to be sold as well. This needs to be killed fast as it is a gun confiscation bill in sheeps clothing.

(a) Determine through the law enforcement information network
20 whether the firearm has been reported lost or stolen. If the
21 firearm has been reported lost or stolen and the name and address
22 of the owner can be determined, the director of the department of
23 state police shall provide 30 days' written notice of his or her
24 intent to dispose of the firearm under this section to the owner,
25 and allow the owner to claim the firearm within that 30-day period
26 if he or she is authorized to possess the firearm.
27 (b) Provide 30 days' notice to the public on the department of
3
S00110'09 (S-3) TVD
state police website of his or her 1 intent to dispose of the firearm
2 under this section. The notice shall include a description of the
3 firearm and shall state the firearm's serial number, if the serial
4 number can be determined. The department of state police shall
5 allow the owner of the firearm to claim the firearm within that 30-
6 day period if he or she is authorized to possess the firearm. The
7 30-day period required under this subdivision is in addition to the
8 30-day period required under subdivision (a).
9 (4) The department of state police is immune from civil
10 liability for disposing of a firearm in compliance with this
11 section.

Originally Posted by Venator

Wait, so every gun they seize they keep, I don't thinks so. The statute addresses only illegal guns that are seized, which under current law are not returned to the offender.

Last edited by Bailenforcer; 11-28-2010 at 01:03 PM.

Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

The House bill has no provision for the local PD to keep the confiscated/found firearms for their own use, while the Senate bill does provide this option.

The House bill has no requirement for local PDs to try to find the owner of a gun before they sell it. The Senate bill mirrors the existing requirements that the MSP currently follow for contacting the owner.

The House bill allows the local PD to sell to any person, via auction, who can legally own a firearm. The Senate bill only allows sale to dealers holding an FFL.

I can definitely see the potential for abuse with these two bills.

Bronson

Last edited by Bronson; 11-28-2010 at 01:55 PM.

Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

This smells like a death of a thousand cuts approach to gun confiscation. Really bad law.

before we know it the epa Will make farting with a gun a crime and they will get your gun under some obscure pollution law, that way, if you think I am being silly just look at the OSHA laws on powder and shell storage and the attempts to make lead a defacto controlled substance because lead is toxic. We as gun owners need to grow u and see they are going to the death of a 1000 cuts approach as predicted over 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by Bronson

The three major differences between the HB and SB that I can see are:

The House bill has no provision for the local PD to keep the confiscated/found firearms for their own use, while the Senate bill does provide this option.

The House bill has no requirement for local PDs to try to find the owner of a gun before they sell it. The Senate bill mirrors the existing requirements that the MSP currently follow for contacting the owner.

The House bill allows the local PD to sell to any person, via auction, who can legally own a firearm. The Senate bill only allows sale to dealers holding an FFL.

I can definitely see the potential for abuse with these two bills.

Bronson

Last edited by Bailenforcer; 11-28-2010 at 02:17 PM.

Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

BRONSON & BAILENFORCER, YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT ON! Thanks for taking a moment to articulately look into the disaster this bill is. It is unbelievable for me that any gun owner would even consider any type of confiscation a viable option.

Even if a crime was committed, why wouldn't a friend or relative be allowed to have the firearm or have a family member or gun shop sell the firearm with the proceeds going for the individuals attorney fee's? Of course they will ALL BE CRIMES WHEN THE GUNS ARE CONFISCATED, like the famous moment where the cop thrusts his chest into you, beats the hog snot our of you and then CHARGES YOU WITH ASSAULT?

I will never understand how myopic and convoluted some can be in not understanding this legislation and how it impacts the other previous legislation. This simple language would totally nullify OPEN CARRY . . . .

PLEASE READ:

to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol

Did you get that? "Prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol". So for those inclined to somehow believe this is so harmless they won't do anything other than ridicule this post, who were totally unaware of the movement of this bill, where does that leave OPEN CARRY.

By default it means that any MISCONDUCT against individuals who DON'T HAVE A CCW (read OPEN CARRY) IS IN FACT NOT PROHIBITED! Thus, it leave you with no leg to stand on! I posted my number for anyone to call me if they had concerns and that was extended to Venator as well.

I ask, after losing so many gun rights and being under continual scrutiny with anything that ocurrs with firearms, can we take any issue or legislation related to guns so nonchalantly as some posters might suggest? Finally had there been people who were concerned enough to show, what was revealed is this is a pilot project from the ATF initiated by some local police chiefs and apparently they felt Michigan gun owners were too occupied to be concerned.

That's when Gun Owners of America got involved and discovered this project was taking place in a handful of selected states, initiated from the federal level and delivered to the local level. Your gun rights in general are and always will be dependent on YOUR participation, make no mistake!

There is a mindset even with gun owners and those who carry, that somehow government and corporations which is government in itself have a supreme right over us and how we behave. This is total error and the thinking of a serf. Unless one infringes on others Government should stay off our backs. We as a people have become like whining cry babies wanting to Government to think for us.

You are 100% correct in the assumption that Government is developing a mentality and past practice case here for the abuse of open carry folk. If anyone doesn't understand what past practice means in a legal sense you need to study this. This bill is a foothold to serious abuse. The constitution is abundantly clear that NO Government can take ANY property without compensation and due cause. Seizure of firearms is dangerous in every way, and to say they should be immune from liability if they abuse or misuse this bill to make money off us by seizures is insanity, and should never be allowed.

Imagine this, your son does something in violation of some obscure hunting regulation and they seize that Weatherby you bought him for his birthday. Guess what you cant get it back under this law. Its a bullsh*t attempt at gun confiscation by a 1000 cuts mentality and they profit from it in full violation of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by goarep

BRONSON & BAILENFORCER, YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT ON! Thanks for taking a moment to articulately look into the disaster this bill is. It is unbelievable for me that any gun owner would even consider any type of confiscation a viable option.

Even if a crime was committed, why wouldn't a friend or relative be allowed to have the firearm or have a family member or gun shop sell the firearm with the proceeds going for the individuals attorney fee's? Of course they will ALL BE CRIMES WHEN THE GUNS ARE CONFISCATED, like the famous moment where the cop thrusts his chest into you, beats the hog snot our of you and then CHARGES YOU WITH ASSAULT?

I will never understand how myopic and convoluted some can be in not understanding this legislation and how it impacts the other previous legislation. This simple language would totally nullify OPEN CARRY . . . .

PLEASE READ:

to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol

Did you get that? "Prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol". So for those inclined to somehow believe this is so harmless they won't do anything other than ridicule this post, who were totally unaware of the movement of this bill, where does that leave OPEN CARRY.

By default it means that any MISCONDUCT against individuals who DON'T HAVE A CCW (read OPEN CARRY) IS IN FACT NOT PROHIBITED! Thus, it leave you with no leg to stand on! I posted my number for anyone to call me if they had concerns and that was extended to Venator as well.

I ask, after losing so many gun rights and being under continual scrutiny with anything that ocurrs with firearms, can we take any issue or legislation related to guns so nonchalantly as some posters might suggest? Finally had there been people who were concerned enough to show, what was revealed is this is a pilot project from the ATF initiated by some local police chiefs and apparently they felt Michigan gun owners were too occupied to be concerned.

That's when Gun Owners of America got involved and discovered this project was taking place in a handful of selected states, initiated from the federal level and delivered to the local level. Your gun rights in general are and always will be dependent on YOUR participation, make no mistake!

Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

Paul, where does the above paragraph appear? I didn't see it in either of the bills b

Hello Bronson! I put my personal number on here for people to call if they had any questions. It's ok if you anyone wants to respond by the site but I only mention this as I do not frequently check this site as I would like but thankfully I did get your correspondence.

Bronson, it is right in the lower third of PA 372 as a preface. However the opening sentence of SB 212 goes on to say:

"by amending section 14 (MCL 28.434), as amended by 2000 PA 381.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 14. (1) Subject EXCEPT 1 AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (4) AND
SUBJECT to section 5g, all pistols, weapons, or devices carried or
possessed contrary to this act are declared forfeited to the state,

I WILL TRY TO EMPHASIZE HERE:

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried !

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! !

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! !

Yes Bronson, this is a very serious bill and it has the support of those who are pushing it like L. Brooks Patterson who is rapidly bolstering the anti-gun phenomenon.

So yes, THEY ALL BECOME F O R F E I T A B L E ! (ALL)

I wish we had more people concerned about showing up tomorrow, that would be a big help!

Has state senator randy richardville been contacted about this bill? he will be the head of the senate in january and already has quite a bit of pull there, as pro gun as he is i think he could help stop this.

Has state senator randy richardville been contacted

Yes, DF, they are all aware of the position of Gun Owners of America. However, Richardville is not a member of the committee and that is where we need to stop it, right now!

Gun owners have been lied to repeatedly, being told that the bill would die and instead pushing harder and faster than ever. The only thing that's going to stop this are NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AT THE HEARING TOMORROW!

Calls needed immediately!

We need to flood the below numbers with calls immediately to prevent
the House from passing this bill!

Please call immediately and let these legislators know you are mad and oppose the Confiscation Bill SB 212! HEARING IS tomorrow SO CALLS NEED TO BE MADE RIGHT NOW AFTER BUSINESS HOURS (LEAVE A MESSAGE) AND IN THE MORNING BEFORE 9A.M. .

Hello Bronson! I put my personal number on here for people to call if they had any questions. It's ok if you anyone wants to respond by the site but I only mention this as I do not frequently check this site as I would like but thankfully I did get your correspondence.

Bronson, it is right in the lower third of PA 372 as a preface. However the opening sentence of SB 212 goes on to say:

"by amending section 14 (MCL 28.434), as amended by 2000 PA 381.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 14. (1) Subject EXCEPT 1 AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (4) ANDSUBJECT to section 5g, all pistols, weapons, or devices carried orpossessed contrary to this act are declared forfeited to the state,

I WILL TRY TO EMPHASIZE HERE:

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried !

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! !

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! !

Yes Bronson, this is a very serious bill and it has the support of those who are pushing it like L. Brooks Patterson who is rapidly bolstering the anti-gun phenomenon.

So yes, THEY ALL BECOME F O R F E I T A B L E ! (ALL)

I wish we had more people concerned about showing up tomorrow, that would be a big help!

Will someone please explain to me what it going on here. As far as I can tell the above bolded section that has people upset is already law and unless you can get it repealed whether or not either the house or senate versions pass it is already law. These two bills have no effect on that part of anything. Only the bolded portion in the documents from either the house or senate versions are new. The rest is existing law.

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! ! are already subject to confiscation under existing law. The onlything being changed is the addition of Section 14a. The authority to confiscate, if I read this correctly, has been around since at least 2000 and probably since 1927 when the original law was passed.

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! ! are already subject to confiscation under existing law. The onlything being changed is the addition of Section 14a. The authority to confiscate, if I read this correctly, has been around since at least 2000 and probably since 1927 when the original law was passed.

That is how I read it also. Both of these bills extend the ability to profit from confiscation to local PDs. A concern for me in the House Bill is the lack of a requirement for local PDs to attempt to reuinite the firearm with it's rightful owner.

Bronson

Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

I've long said the best way to get somebody to do something is to make it profitable for them. Once local PDs can make a profit from confiscated firearms the temptation to find any justification to confiscate becomes too great.

Bronson

Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine